Non-representable relation algebras from vector spaces

Extending a construction of Andreka, Givant, and Nemeti (2019), we construct some finite vector spaces and use them to build finite non-representable relation algebras. They are simple, measurable, and persistently finite, and they validate arbitrary finite sets of equations that are valid in the variety RRA of representable relation algebras. It follows that there is no finitely axiomatisable class of relation algebras that contains RRA and validates every equation that is both valid in RRA and preserved by completions of relation algebras. Consequently, the variety generated by the completions of representable relation algebras is not finitely axiomatisable. This answers a question of Maddux (2018).

Various notions of represetability for cylindric and polyadic algebras

For β an ordinal, let PEAβ (SetPEAβ) denote the class of polyadic equality (set) algebras of dimension β. We show that for any infinite ordinal α, if is atomic, then for any n < ω, the n-neat reduct of , in symbols , is a completely representable PEAn (regardless of the representability of ). That is to say, for all non-zero , there is a and a homomorphism such that fa(a) ≠ 0 and for any for which exists. We give new proofs that various classes consisting solely of completely representable algebras of relations are not elementary; we further show that the class of completely representable relation algebras is not closed under ≡∞,ω. Various notions of representability (such as ‘satisfying the Lyndon conditions’, weak and strong) are lifted from the level of atom structures to that of atomic algebras and are further characterized via special neat embeddings. As a sample, we show that the class of atomic CAns satisfying the Lyndon conditions coincides with the class of atomic algebras in ElScNrnCAω, where El denotes ‘elementary closure’ and Sc is the operation of forming complete subalgebras.

NONREPRESENTABLE RELATION ALGEBRAS FROM GROUPS

A series of nonrepresentable relation algebras is constructed from groups. We use them to prove that there are continuum many subvarieties between the variety of representable relation algebras and the variety of coset relation algebras. We present our main construction in terms of polygroupoids.

Relevant logic and relation algebras

In 2007, Maddux observed that certain classes of representable relationalgebras (RRAs) form sound semantics for some relevant logics. In particular,(a) RRAs of transitive relations are sound for R, and (b) RRAs of transitive,dense relations are sound for RM. He asked whether they were complete aswell. Later that year I proved a modest positive result in a similar direction,namely that weakly associative relation algebras, a class (much) larger thanRRA, is sound and complete for positive relevant logic B. In 2008, Mikulas proved anegative result: that RRAs of transitive relations are not complete for R.His proof is indirect: he shows that the quasivariety of appropriatereducts of transitive RRAs is not finitely based. Later Maddux re-establishedthe result in a more direct way. In 2010, Maddux proved a contrasting positive result: that transitive, dense RRAs are complete for RM. He found an embedding of Sugihara algebras into transitive, dense RRAs. I will show that if we give up the requirement of representability, the positive result holds for R as well. To be precise, the following theorem holds.Theorem. Every normal subdirectly irreducible De Morgan monoid in the languagewithout Ackermann constant can be embedded into a square-increasing relationalgebra. Therefore, the variety of such algebras is sound and complete for R.

THERE IS NO FINITE-VARIABLE EQUATIONAL AXIOMATIZATION OF REPRESENTABLE RELATION ALGEBRAS OVER WEAKLY REPRESENTABLE RELATION ALGEBRAS

We prove that any equational basis that defines representable relation algebras (RRA) over weakly representable relation algebras (wRRA) must contain infinitely many variables. The proof uses a construction of arbitrarily large finite weakly representable but not representable relation algebras whose “small” subalgebras are representable.

On canonicity and completions of weakly representable relation algebras

We show that the variety of weakly representable relation algebras is neither canonical nor closed under Monk completions.

Weak representations of relation algebras and relational bases

It is known that for all finite n ≥ 5, there are relation algebras with n-dimensional relational bases but no weak representations. We prove that conversely, there are finite weakly representable relation algebras with no n-dimensional relational bases. In symbols: neither of the classes RAn and wRRA contains the other.